(HC) Williams v. People of the State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 HENRY DON WILLIAMS, No. 2:17-cv-2627-TLN-AC P 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER CALIFORNIA, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Petitioner Henry Don Williams (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 7, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 55). The deadline has 23 passed and neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 1 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 | the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 55), are ADOPTED; and 5 2. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 53), is DENIED. 6 | DATED: March 28, 2025 4 8 . 4 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28